Acusados

On 6 March 1983, a woman named Cheryl Araujo was gang-raped by four men on a pool table at Big Dan's Tavern in New Bedford, Massachusetts. A number of men in the bar were cheering the attackers on and after the victim escaped into the street, they continued drinking and joking about the incident.

Ms. Araujo, 21, and all four of her assailants were Portuguese, a major ethnicity in former New England "mill towns" like New Bedford. The Portuguese community sided with its errant sons, rather than their victim, and Cheryl Araujo was basically driven out of town by the animosity of her neighbors. She was killed in an automobile accident in Florida in 1986, leaving behind two children.

This film was loosely based on the Araujo case. Several of Jodie Foster's scenes were so powerful they nearly brought me to tears -- specifically, the scene where she confronts lawyer Kelly McGillis in the latter's apartment during a dinner party; her courtroom testimony; and the horrifying rape scene.

Kelly McGillis seemed to be sleepwalking through this entire film, with only a few moments when she roused herself a bit, but not enough to help. Even so, she appeared more sensitive than the volunteer from the rape crisis center, who stood NEXT TO the ER doctor during the post-assault pelvic exam. If I had been on that table, I'd have wrenched a foot out of the stirrups and kicked her. A woman who has just been gang raped doesn't need one more person invading her privacy.

I agree with an earlier poster who noted the difficult roles of the "cheer and clap" trio. It must have been extremely challenging for a guy who has any sensitivity at all about women to convincingly portray the kind of jerks those three were. My hat's off to all three of them.

Perfectly knowing that a lot of people would get inspired, personally relate or cite examples from this film, there is no reason to deny that except for the rape victim Sarah Tobias, all the other main characters, even attorney Kathryn Murphy, are written blatantly as stereotypical as they can be. Same can be said about the atmosphere, circumstances and the participators of the incident. The screenwriters have played only one masterstroke by showing the whole rape incident much later in a flashback, which perhaps helps us to relate better to the victim's emotions.

However predictable and blunt the film appears in its formation, it delivers it message right with the help of the outstanding (and Oscar-winning) performance of Jodie Foster. She just plays her part with so much passion that sometimes it would seem that she really IS the victim. I wonder how she could get such a driving force for her role which is so powerful and vengeful, yet so helpless and fragile. It is the performance of her career, Clarice Sterling doesn't even come in comparison. Her job in this film should be treated as educational material.

I saw this film with my girlfriend about a year after I graduated from college, where I had lived in the alpha-male, females-as-accessories environment of a fraternity house. While I know of nothing that went on in my fraternity that compares to the horrible events of this film, I was struck that some of the beer-fueled conversations I had with my fraternity brothers could have led to the same results with more likelihood than I realized at the time (or care to admit even to this day). Suffice it to say, I cried all the way home from this movie, as much from shame as anything else.

Twelve years later, I still cannot recall being as horrifyingly struck by a scene as I was during the rape scene at the end of "The Accused" -- and I definitely do not have the stomach to see it again. The movie, in my view, is exceedingly well-acted (Foster's Oscar was well-deserved) and well-told. It has the rare gift of touching the viewer viscerally for the entire duration -- discomfort being the feeling.

This isn't virtuoso film-making like "The Godfather", but at the same time I can think of no greater compliment for a movie than it truly opened my eyes to a new perspective that I was not mature enough to grasp on my own. I left the theater a different person -- how often can that be said?

I don't watch many courtroom dramas. I've seen most of the great ones: 12 Angry Men, Witness for the Prosecution, To Kill a Mockingbird. Of all the ones that predate The Accused, Not many push as far into the red zone as this. As you go back through the decades of Hollywood cinema, films get more and more censored. In parts, The Accused is quite brutal. It would probably have seemed even more so to those who viewed it upon release 20 years ago. There are two trials in this movie. For the first, the accused persons have been charged with rape. For the second, the accused persons (different people) are charged with the crime of cheering it on (to put it in more casual terms). What the movie gives us a taste of is extremely inhumane, worse than murder even. That and two good actresses at the top of their game, results in a credible, involving courtroom drama. The screenplay is a tad over written in some places, so it's not a brilliant movie, but it is a fine specimen to sample for those who enjoy this genre.

Jodie Foster plays Sarah Tobias, a small-town waitress with a bad reputation(and drug user) who is brutally attacked by three men in a bar, who were also being cheered on by some of the onlookers. Sarah is determined to convince the District Attorney on the case(Kelly McGillis) to bring it to trial, not just the three attackers, but the onlookers as well.

Powerful film is supremely well acted by Jodie Foster(Academy Award Winner)Film runs the risk of being crass exploitation, but is well directed, and again it is the sympathetic and defiant performance of Jodie as this wronged, violated woman that makes this film work as well as it does.

Not for the faint-hearted.